You want to list out when those game came out in the market, Xbox games stopped coming out in in late 2005. You still think that graph is still wrong? If you look at 2006 and up, which is what those graphs are showing, the number of Havok titles for PC goes down pretty fast. This is when Havok was the only solid physics engine out there prior to Novedex

What are you talking about now? First you want to talk about PC only, the list you just showed me a list that isn't PC only. What do you exactly want to talk about? Because throwing a billion darts at a board you are bound to hit something correctly.

There is only one camp because ATi doesn't get off their butt to do anything, they can't talk and show powerpoint slides all they want it, buts till they actually get some decent opencl and direct compute drivers and with bullet with some games, they don't have much of a choice (yeah they aren't in the greatest shape right now).

Funny thing is games 10 years ago had very little outside of collision detection based on bound box, even games 5 years ago, same old collision detection based on pre poly (acutally just more precise bound box based on skeletons), now we are doing per poly with physX, see the difference in escalation.

When you really want to talk about things like this, guys really read some basic game programming books, don't need to know the real thing and make a game, just the basics and history have how games have evoloved from a tech point of view. To me when people put out for the most part pointless arguements based on crap knowledge, guess what.........

They don't really need to do anything when viewed in broader terms,as ATI is owned by AMD and AMD makes CPU's,which are used to run physics in games,among other things of course,and obviously,intel also has a say in the matter,since they're also primarily a CPU business afterall,and both are interested in selling the fastest and most expensive CPU's they can make to hardware enthusiats.

The other point is that i have yet to see a single user claim that at least with Nvidia's current hardware(might be different with Fermi),that they can run a game and GPU physics on the same GPU and still get acceptable performance,especially if the user in question like to play games at high quality settings,so at least for now,GPU physics are relegated to either Dual GPU cards,or multi card SLI setups,which have the extra power to pull it off with good performance.

Nvidia will have a real edge when they develop a single card with a single processor in it, that can do both workloads(graphics + physics),at high graphics quality,while still having playable performance....Until then,it's a gimmick plain and simple.